-
NASA managers approve STS-135 mission planning for June 28, 2011 launch
by
Chris Bergin
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:22
-
-
#1
by
kraisee
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:26
-
Good article Chris! I think you're the first site to be confirming that.
Ross.
-
#2
by
astrobrian
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:28
-
Good article Chris! I think you're the first site to be confirming that.
Ross.
That's how he rolls
-
#3
by
Alpha Control
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:29
-
Yes indeed. Excellent news!
-
#4
by
Chris Bergin
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:33
-
Good article Chris! I think you're the first site to be confirming that.
Ross.
There's some JSC people on twitter talking about dancing around (happy) about it.
and wow!
NASA and it's 500,000 followers:
"NASA @NASASpaceflight NASA has asked to move the STS-335 launch on need flight to June to streamline planning *IF* STS-135 becomes real."
PAO not too happy then. We did check the context and noted the funding element etc.
-
#5
by
MP99
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:33
-
That's grand.
So, does the failed PM get to come down on 135?
cheers, Martin
-
#6
by
Alpha Control
on 20 Aug, 2010 19:56
-
That's grand.
So, does the failed PM get to come down on 135?
cheers, Martin
That appears to be part of the plan, based on comments I saw in the article.
-
#7
by
robertross
on 20 Aug, 2010 23:15
-
That's grand.
So, does the failed PM get to come down on 135?
cheers, Martin
That appears to be part of the plan, based on comments I saw in the article.
Yup. This is totaly awesome news: the failed PM has a chance to come back.
Oh, and STS-135...can't forget that
I can't wait to see what goes up on the LMC, and in the MPLM. SO many choices, and best yet: the PMM will be in place and they can stuff it full if they need to.
-
#8
by
steveS
on 21 Aug, 2010 01:48
-
What is the purpose of staging an EVA using the station crew during STS-135? (Unless a shuttle crew member is involved)
-
#9
by
Aobrien
on 21 Aug, 2010 02:14
-
Have not read the article yet but from what I think they have to use ISS crew member because there are only 4 shuttle crew members for this mission and they will need an EVA for whatever they carry on the LMC thus needing the ISS crew members to perform an EVA
-
#10
by
Space Pete
on 21 Aug, 2010 02:27
-
Just as a note, ISS EVA crewmembers will likely be Ron Garan & Mike Fossum, as they will be the only US crewmembers on ISS during Expedition 28/STS-135. A bonus of using Garan & Fossum is that they both made EVAs together during STS-124 in June 2008!
-
#11
by
Mark Dave
on 23 Aug, 2010 20:50
-
All right! Atlantis flies again.
-
#12
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Aug, 2010 23:56
-
Does anyone know what the ISS assembly designation would be for STS-135? ULF7 maybe?
-
#13
by
Skylon
on 24 Aug, 2010 04:04
-
Just as a note, ISS EVA crewmembers will likely be Ron Garan & Mike Fossum, as they will be the only US crewmembers on ISS during Expedition 28/STS-135. A bonus of using Garan & Fossum is that they both made EVAs together during STS-124 in June 2008!
Still, two shuttle crew members will have to be trained for EVA in the event of a contingency spacewalk, as per normal procedure.
Something that occurred to me, what will the seating look like on launch and entry? Its been a long time since a four crew flight (STS-6!) Will they do it like STS-6 with all four on the flight deck, or STS-5, one MS on the flight deck and another on the mid-deck (done mainly due to Columbia's flight deck not being ready for a fourth seat....maybe done for STS-135 due to the hatch escape system on the mid-deck)?
-
#14
by
nathan.moeller
on 24 Aug, 2010 12:26
-
Just as a note, ISS EVA crewmembers will likely be Ron Garan & Mike Fossum, as they will be the only US crewmembers on ISS during Expedition 28/STS-135. A bonus of using Garan & Fossum is that they both made EVAs together during STS-124 in June 2008!
Still, two shuttle crew members will have to be trained for EVA in the event of a contingency spacewalk, as per normal procedure.
Something that occurred to me, what will the seating look like on launch and entry? Its been a long time since a four crew flight (STS-6!) Will they do it like STS-6 with all four on the flight deck, or STS-5, one MS on the flight deck and another on the mid-deck (done mainly due to Columbia's flight deck not being ready for a fourth seat....maybe done for STS-135 due to the hatch escape system on the mid-deck)?
They'll all be on the flight deck. Remember that every flight's MS1 has to video the external tank as it falls away after MECO (although his/her duties might include still photos on STS-135 since he/she will be the only one documenting the discarded ET).
-
#15
by
Space Pete
on 24 Aug, 2010 12:38
-
Just as a note, ISS EVA crewmembers will likely be Ron Garan & Mike Fossum, as they will be the only US crewmembers on ISS during Expedition 28/STS-135. A bonus of using Garan & Fossum is that they both made EVAs together during STS-124 in June 2008!
Still, two shuttle crew members will have to be trained for EVA in the event of a contingency spacewalk, as per normal procedure.
Something that occurred to me, what will the seating look like on launch and entry? Its been a long time since a four crew flight (STS-6!) Will they do it like STS-6 with all four on the flight deck, or STS-5, one MS on the flight deck and another on the mid-deck (done mainly due to Columbia's flight deck not being ready for a fourth seat....maybe done for STS-135 due to the hatch escape system on the mid-deck)?
They'll all be on the flight deck. Remember that every flight's MS1 has to video the external tank as it falls away after MECO (although his/her duties might include still photos on STS-135 since he/she will be the only one documenting the discarded ET).
I should imagine they'll pack the mid-deck with as much cargo as they possibly can.
-
#16
by
scott6428
on 24 Aug, 2010 12:59
-
Great news but I wonder about the unlikely rescue plan. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait til there was an ISS crew rotation? only 3 on station when 135 docks - that way the next 3 coming up could step aside for a resuce mission?
-
#17
by
JayP
on 24 Aug, 2010 14:22
-
I should imagine they'll pack the mid-deck with as much cargo as they possibly can.
Any cargo would go in the mid-deck lockers or behind / under the trampoline as normal. They wouldn't block the escape pole, the hatch jetison panel on the port side or the cutaway area on the starboard side wall.
-
#18
by
JayP
on 24 Aug, 2010 14:26
-
Great news but I wonder about the unlikely rescue plan. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait til there was an ISS crew rotation? only 3 on station when 135 docks - that way the next 3 coming up could step aside for a resuce mission?
They will want as many hands a possible to unload the MPLM while everything else is going on.
-
#19
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Aug, 2010 14:35
-
Working another article that has STS-135 relation. Someone asked the question about the tank designations....willl be on that, with relevance to STS-134, and also a section on ET-94.
-
#20
by
Chris Bergin
on 24 Aug, 2010 21:42
-
-
#21
by
robertross
on 25 Aug, 2010 02:03
-
Great history on the tanks Chris.
This is so awesome...the chance at another shuttle launch. JOY!
And a chance to bring down the failed Pump Module: very important in my books.
-
#22
by
steveS
on 26 Aug, 2010 09:23
-
Has Atlantis' sensor package now repaired? (which had a snag cable problem during STS-132)
-
#23
by
robertross
on 26 Aug, 2010 15:20
-
Has Atlantis' sensor package now repaired? (which had a snag cable problem during STS-132)
Yes, that was cleared up, and they will do a confirmation of cable routing during processing with the closeout photos.
-
#24
by
Chris Bergin
on 02 Sep, 2010 04:01
-
-
#25
by
steveS
on 03 Sep, 2010 04:45
-
1. Is the funding for the STS-134 LON mission approved? (if so, what additional funding is required for STS-135?)
2. Regarding the ET swap, how long can NASA wait to hear about the funding decision? I remember, in one article, December period was mentioned regarding the possible ET swap. If the funding decision drags till the new year, hope this will affect. Also, in case, STS-135 does not fly will the LON mission be assigned with ET-122 instead of the ET-138?
3. About the 11 member astronaut pool, can someone name them?
-
#26
by
Chris Bergin
on 03 Sep, 2010 05:12
-
1. Is the funding for the STS-134 LON mission approved? (if so, what additional funding is required for STS-135?)
2. Regarding the ET swap, how long can NASA wait to hear about the funding decision? I remember, in one article, December period was mentioned regarding the possible ET swap. If the funding decision drags till the new year, hope this will affect. Also, in case, STS-135 does not fly will the LON mission be assigned with ET-122 instead of the ET-138?
3. About the 11 member astronaut pool, can someone name them?
Good questions there Steve.
On 3 - no, it's a bit taboo to mention names before they are selected.
1) Good question. I'm tempted to say yes, but I'm not sure how final flight LON funding works, as we moved to next flight being the natural LON for the past few years (when the manifest was busy and CSCS was healthy).
2) Right, this is ironic timing, as today's PRCB produced a lengthy presentation on this. I'm still reading through it (we have it on L2), and it covers this subject. Let me work through it and I'll get some answers, but it'll also become another article on 135 (and 134, 335).
-
#27
by
Ben E
on 03 Sep, 2010 13:07
-
Chris,
Out of curiosity, will you be able to release the 11-name 'pool' AFTER the 135 crew has been formally announced? It would be interesting to know who is in the pool and the criteria for their selection.
Ben
-
#28
by
Chris Bergin
on 03 Sep, 2010 13:55
-
Chris,
Out of curiosity, will you be able to release the 11-name 'pool' AFTER the 135 crew has been formally announced? It would be interesting to know who is in the pool and the criteria for their selection.
Ben
If I get the 11 names, and if I get permission. Got to be very careful with astros. Orbiters don't answer back, astro office probably would
-
#29
by
nathan.moeller
on 03 Sep, 2010 14:58
-
Does anyone have a general idea of what liftoff time a June 28, 2011 launch date would target?
-
#30
by
Skylon
on 03 Sep, 2010 15:07
-
The entire "pool" concept seems a bit odd. Did someone in the crew selection line say "I've narrowed it down to 11...." and want to pick four by committee, or defer to someone above them?
Or are 11 astronauts the only ones currently engaged in any sort of "generic" shuttle work that would have them suitably ready for an actual mission?
The only possible guess I can hazard is the following. Of the last two MPLM missions (STS-128 and STS-131), there are nine active US astronauts (excluding Kevin Ford as he's assigned to an ISS crew). Add two former ISS crew members to the pool, and you have 11. I'd be shocked if that wild estimation comes close to right though.
-
#31
by
nathan.moeller
on 03 Sep, 2010 15:53
-
The entire "pool" concept seems a bit odd. Did someone in the crew selection line say "I've narrowed it down to 11...." and want to pick four by committee, or defer to someone above them?
Or are 11 astronauts the only ones currently engaged in any sort of "generic" shuttle work that would have them suitably ready for an actual mission?
The only possible guess I can hazard is the following. Of the last two MPLM missions (STS-128 and STS-131), there are nine active US astronauts (excluding Kevin Ford as he's assigned to an ISS crew). Add two former ISS crew members to the pool, and you have 11. I'd be shocked if that wild estimation comes close to right though.
You also have to look at who is up next in the CDR/PLT rotation. Ken Ham just got back from STS-132 and his last flight was STS-124. That would put Chris Ferguson (STS-126 CDR) next in line for the CDR position. If it's not Ferguson, you'd probably see Archambault get the flight.
Antonelli just finished STS-132 and his last mission was STS-119. Look at the pilots who flew after STS-119 - Ray J Johnson, Doug Hurley, Kevin Ford, Barry Wimore, Terry Virts and Jim Dutton. Johnson is retired so that puts Hurley at the front of the line for the PLT position. As mentioned before, Kevin Ford is headed for ISS in 2012 so he won't be flying STS-135. That puts Wilmore, Virts and Dutton in line behind Hurley in case he isn't assiged.
As for the two MSes, look for the most experienced RMS and MPLM crewmembers from recent flights. My guess? Stephanie Wilson and Clay Anderson. Wilson has three flights under heesr belt in the last four years (all with considerable RMS/SSRMS work - Node 2 install, P6 relocation, MPLM, etc.) and Anderson has a four-month stay aboard ISS to his credit, as well as the recent STS-131 MPLM flight.
-
#32
by
Space Pete
on 03 Sep, 2010 16:50
-
Don't forget that MSs with Soyuz experience will be desirable, as there will be no LON for 135. If a Russian CDR, one MS, and one Shuttle PLT/CDR were in each Soyuz, then that would mean only one inexperienced crewmember would be aboard, instead of two.
My best guess at a crew is as follows:
CDR = Chris Ferguson.
As well as being in line to fly, he's practically the chief's number two man, so I expect he'd get the final Shuttle mission. Also, he has been CDR on an MPLM flight before (STS-126).
PLT = Doug Hurley/Barry Wilmore/Terry Virts/Jim Dutton.
I'm really not sure who'll be PLT. Hurley is next in line, but Wilmore, Virts & Dutton all have more recent experience - Dutton has MPLM experience too.
MS-1: Tracy Caldwell-Dyson.
Was on ISS during STS-131, and so has MPLM experience. Was loadmaster for SPACEHAB SM on STS-118. Now has a lot of EVA experience! Obviously has Soyuz experience. Will have very recent experience that she could pass on to other crewmembers.
MS-2: TJ Creamer.
Same reasons as Tracy, minus SPACEHAB SM & EVA experience.
Also, is only remaining NASA Astronaut not to have flown on Shuttle (apart from Shannon Walker, who won't be down until November. Shannon would be desirable however, as she is fully qualified as a Soyuz co-pilot). TJ also flew with Tracy during Exp. 23, and so there would already be a firm bond between them (not required, but desirable).
If Dutton was PLT, with Tracy & TJ as MSs, then all three would have flown together before (during STS-131).
-
#33
by
DavisSTS
on 03 Sep, 2010 19:44
-
Does anyone have a general idea of what liftoff time a June 28, 2011 launch date would target?
Refer to the "PRCB Master Manifest - with window constraints - to STS-135 - Sept, 2010" on L2.
-
#34
by
Ray125
on 03 Sep, 2010 19:56
-
Does anyone have a general idea of what liftoff time a June 28, 2011 launch date would target?
I Saw the CBS Space News that STS-135 might Launch around 3:48 p.m. only if the mission is approved.
-
#35
by
Thorny
on 03 Sep, 2010 20:16
-
I Saw the CBS Space News that STS-135 might Launch around 3:48 p.m. only if the mission is approved.
Late afternoon in the summer. Be prepared for a scrub or two!
-
#36
by
Chris Bergin
on 03 Sep, 2010 22:34
-
Does anyone have a general idea of what liftoff time a June 28, 2011 launch date would target?
Refer to the "PRCB Master Manifest - with window constraints - to STS-135 - Sept, 2010" on L2.
-
#37
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Sep, 2010 16:58
-
The entire "pool" concept seems a bit odd.
Not to belabor this point but:
The pool concept is nothing new. It's a logical progress toward assigning a flight crew. You don't just pick the astronauts. You look at a qualified list, narrow that list down to a more manageable size (but a size that's still larger than the number of seats available), you start discussions, talk to the astros (remember, even though we might find this hard to believe, some astros might turn down a flight for personal/career reasons). Then, from the smaller pool, you select the final flight crew.
-
#38
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Sep, 2010 13:11
-
-
#39
by
steveS
on 12 Sep, 2010 08:57
-
Will NASA announce the STS 335/135 crew this coming week?
-
#40
by
wjbarnett
on 12 Sep, 2010 15:25
-
I'll bet they won't announce until/unless Congress (and the Pres) authorize 135 in the FY2011 NASA budget bill. Though perhaps the targeted '335 crew' will be trained w/o announcement
-
#41
by
psloss
on 12 Sep, 2010 15:58
-
I'll bet they won't announce until/unless Congress (and the Pres) authorize 135 in the FY2011 NASA budget bill. Though perhaps the targeted '335 crew' will be trained w/o announcement
We'll see; if the 335 crew is named, it's probably going to go public one way or another. As
Bill Harwood wrote, the 335 crew will fly either mission designation. And as the article that is the topic of this thread details, the program recently aligned the content and launch dates such that training can start while waiting for a decision.
-
#42
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Sep, 2010 14:34
-
-
#43
by
Space Pete
on 13 Sep, 2010 15:20
-
-
#44
by
Orbiter
on 13 Sep, 2010 15:27
-
Will NASA announce the STS 335/135 crew this coming week?
It should be named tomorrow, as indicated from the August 20th article on STS-135.
According to the meeting notes, crew selection will take place on September 14, with training – or crew loading – to begin on September 27. The June 28, 2011 launch date moves the mission four days to the right of previous evaluations.
Orbiter
-
#45
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Sep, 2010 15:29
-
-
#46
by
Space Pete
on 13 Sep, 2010 15:50
-
Will NASA announce the STS 335/135 crew this coming week?
It should be named tomorrow, as indicated from the August 20th article on STS-135.
Oh, I'd forgotten about that! Now you've got me all excited (although we probably won't get to hear about it for a week or so yet).
-
#47
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Sep, 2010 20:27
-
Not looking all that likely NASA's going to issue a press release on the STS-335/135 names today, as it's getting a bit late in the day for such a release. I don't want to run ahead of any public announcement (crew selections are rightly protected) so let's see if NASA will announce a crew this week and go from there.
For the record I don't have a full crew on an official memo or something, but we're confident we know who the commander and pilot are. And to be honest, if we did have the full crew, I'd seek a lot of permissions to run names. Reason being, it'd be a nightmare scenario for a crewmember's family to read it on a website before being told themselves.
-
#48
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Sep, 2010 22:27
-
They've released it!
RELEASE: 10-222
NASA ASSIGNS CREW FOR FINAL LAUNCH ON NEED SHUTTLE MISSION
WASHINGTON -- NASA announced the four astronauts who will make up the
crew of STS-335, the rescue mission that would fly only if needed to
bring home the members of space shuttle Endeavour's STS-134 mission,
currently the final scheduled shuttle flight.
Chris Ferguson, a retired U.S. Navy captain and veteran of two
previous shuttle missions, would command the flight. Astronaut and
U.S. Marine Col. Doug Hurley would serve as pilot, and astronauts
Sandy Magnus and retired U.S. Air Force Col. Rex Walheim would be the
mission specialists.
Based on recommendations made after the loss of space shuttle Columbia
in February 2003, NASA has trained a launch on need crew to be ready
to fly in the event of irreparable damage to a shuttle while in
orbit. Typically, the next crew to fly serves as the rescue crew for
the current mission. The STS-335 crew will prepare for a potential
rescue mission and preserve flexibility if another shuttle flight is
added to the launch manifest.
"These astronauts will begin training immediately as a rescue crew as
well as in the baseline requirements that would be needed to fly an
additional shuttle flight," said Bill Gerstenmaier, associate
administrator for NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate in
Washington. "The normal training template for a shuttle crew is about
one year prior to launch, so we need to begin training now in order
to maintain the flexibility of flying a rescue mission if needed, or
alter course and fly an additional shuttle mission if that decision
is made."
If required, the STS-335 rescue mission would launch on shuttle
Atlantis in June 2011 to bring home the STS-134 crew from the
International Space Station. STS-134 currently is scheduled to lift
off on Feb. 26, 2011, from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. If
converted to an additional shuttle flight, STS-335 would be
redesignated STS-135 and targeted to launch in June 2011.
Ferguson, who was born in Philadelphia, flew on two prior shuttle
missions, STS-115 in 2006 and STS-126 in 2008. Hurley, who was born
in Endicott, N.Y., but considers Apalachin, N.Y., his hometown,
served as the pilot on STS-127 in 2009. Magnus, of Belleville, Ill.,
flew on STS-112 in 2002 and launched to the space station in 2008 on
STS-126, where she served four and a half months as a flight engineer
and science officer on Expedition 18 before returning to Earth on
STS-119 in 2009. Walheim was born in Redwood City, Calif., and
considers San Carlos, Calif., his hometown. He flew on STS-110 in
2002 and STS-122 in 2008.
-
#49
by
steveS
on 14 Sep, 2010 23:57
-
Good to see a female astronaut selected for the final shuttle mission and also for Atlantis after two consecutive all male crews (STS-129 and STS-132)
-
#50
by
nathan.moeller
on 15 Sep, 2010 03:05
-
Good to see a female astronaut selected for the final shuttle mission and also for Atlantis after two consecutive all male crews (STS-129 and STS-132)
Also notable is the fact that all of these astronauts, with the exception of Doug Hurley, made their first flights on Atlantis and in consecutive flights of the orbiter.
STS-110 Atlantis - Rex Walheim as MS
STS-112 Atlantis - Sandra Magnus as MS
STS-115 Atlantis - Chris Ferguson as PLT
This is interesting as well - all three pilot-heavy branches of the military (USAF, USN and USMC) are represented on this flight.
Ferguson - USN
Walheim - USAF
Hurley - USMC
Obviously these had no bearing whatsoever on their selection, but it's cool to see!
-
#51
by
steveS
on 15 Sep, 2010 03:39
-
Also notable is the fact that all of these astronauts, with the exception of Doug Hurley, made their first flights on Atlantis and in consecutive flights of the orbiter.
STS-110 Atlantis - Rex Walheim as MS
STS-112 Atlantis - Sandra Magnus as MS
STS-115 Atlantis - Chris Ferguson as PLT
This is interesting as well - all three pilot-heavy branches of the military (USAF, USN and USMC) are represented on this flight.
Ferguson - USN
Walheim - USAF
Hurley - USMC
Obviously these had no bearing whatsoever on their selection, but it's cool to see!
Indeed the crew seems to have ample experience with Atlantis
. Ferguson and Magnus have flown with the STS-126 (a MPLM mission) while Walheim has EVA experience. Magnus has also stayed at ISS for a long duration. Seems like a very good combination and a selection
-
#52
by
Sesquipedalian
on 15 Sep, 2010 17:45
-
Chris Ferguson, a retired U.S. Navy captain and veteran of two
previous shuttle missions, would command the flight.
Congress may have something to say about this. Based on the Senate bill, it seems they want Charlie Bolden himself to command the flight.
(e) SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION TO ISS.
16 (1) SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION.The Adminis-
17 trator shall fly the Launch-On-Need Shuttle mission
18 currently designated in the Shuttle Flight Manifest
19 dated February 28, 2010, to the ISS in fiscal year
20 2011, but no earlier than June 1, 2011, unless re
21 quired earlier by an operations contingency, and
22 pending the results of the assessment required by
23 paragraph (2) and the determination under para
24 graph (3)(A).
I wonder if the Supreme Court has ever established how literally you're supposed to read these bills.
-
#53
by
Chris Bergin
on 16 Sep, 2010 05:06
-
-
#54
by
steveS
on 16 Sep, 2010 08:21
-
Lets say STS-135 does not fly. In that case will NASA bring back STS-335 to say April or still it will be in June?. If some of the current funding expires on March, then how will NASA plan to cover the costs of STS-335?
-
#55
by
psloss
on 18 Sep, 2010 19:51
-
Mark Carreau's article in Aviation Week includes comments from Bill Gerstenmaier on when a decision would need to be made:
Link
-
#56
by
steveS
on 22 Sep, 2010 12:54
-
Will part of the Discovery, Endeavour and Atlantis teams be joined together for the processing of STS-135 if congress approves?. Since after STS-133 and 134, Discovery and Endeavour wont be going through mission preparations (although there will be de-servicing actives needed to be done)
-
#57
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Sep, 2010 18:26
-
-
#58
by
brettreds2k
on 22 Sep, 2010 20:44
-
When is it expected to get a final announcement on if STS-135 will fly or not?
-
#59
by
renclod
on 22 Sep, 2010 22:02
-
-
#60
by
psloss
on 22 Sep, 2010 22:10
-
-
#61
by
Chris Bergin
on 22 Sep, 2010 23:26
-
-
#62
by
astrobrian
on 22 Sep, 2010 23:33
-
When is it expected to get a final announcement on if STS-135 will fly or not?
There is no real set date that I am aware of, it really hinges on when Congress can agree on things and give the final nod before they end the session.
-
#63
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Sep, 2010 23:43
-
When is it expected to get a final announcement on if STS-135 will fly or not?
There is no real set date that I am aware of, it really hinges on when Congress can agree on things and give the final nod before they end the session.
Can't remember where I read it, but saw a recent interview with Bill Gerstenmier that stated that the Agency hoped to decided by January 2011 whether or not to fly Atlantis on STS-135.
-
#64
by
steveS
on 23 Sep, 2010 00:30
-
So when is this expect to happen from the congress side ? Clearly at some point of the time, they will have to say yes or no. And has NASA request them to do so before the so called January 2011 deadline.
There is no real set date that I am aware of, it really hinges on when Congress can agree on things and give the final nod before they end the session.
-
#65
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Sep, 2010 00:55
-
So when is this expect to happen from the congress side ? Clearly at some point of the time, they will have to say yes or no. And has NASA request them to do so before the so called January 2011 deadline.
There is no real set date that I am aware of, it really hinges on when Congress can agree on things and give the final nod before they end the session.
According to the local news tonight here in Orlando, Congress has reached an impass on NASA's budget that is unlikely to be resolved before Congress recesses in two weeks. Exactly what this means is still unclear.
-
#66
by
steveS
on 23 Sep, 2010 03:12
-
Thank you Chris
. I thought they already had a recess until September. Sadly, seems like it is dragging. Not to mention that the final approval has to come from president Obama. Seems like that the whole process will take a long time which could severely impact the chances of STS-135 flying.
So when is this expect to happen from the congress side ? Clearly at some point of the time, they will have to say yes or no. And has NASA request them to do so before the so called January 2011 deadline.
There is no real set date that I am aware of, it really hinges on when Congress can agree on things and give the final nod before they end the session.
According to the local news tonight here in Orlando, Congress has reached an impass on NASA's budget that is unlikely to be resolved before Congress recesses in two weeks. Exactly what this means is still unclear.
-
#67
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Sep, 2010 04:37
-
Thank you Chris . I thought they already had a recess until September. Sadly, seems like it is dragging. Not to mention that the final approval has to come from president Obama. Seems like that the whole process will take a long time which could severely impact the chances of STS-135 flying.
Congress is dragging its feet on the issue and I fear Obama will veto the bill that would approve STS-135 for no other reason than the fact it wasn't his plan. He will probably prove to be the biggest obstacle here.
-
#68
by
psloss
on 23 Sep, 2010 11:35
-
-
#69
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Sep, 2010 12:30
-
-
#70
by
psloss
on 23 Sep, 2010 12:42
-
-
#71
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Sep, 2010 17:51
-
(The situation has changed again since then, at least from the public perspective.)
That additional Shuttle mission (STS-134) was authorized in October, 2008. (In part due to support from both Presidential nominees.) That's where the authorization to proceed with the work on ET-122 came from.
I know, but STS-134 doesn't really score a tally in Obama's promises column. That was done while Bush was still in office. STS-135 is the one people think of when they listen to Obama's speech from August 2008. The differences between his promises and his actual plan are making people wonder just what he'll do when it comes to signing a bill that authorizes a plan that isn't his.
-
#72
by
psloss
on 23 Sep, 2010 18:06
-
-
#73
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Sep, 2010 18:29
-
-
#74
by
psloss
on 23 Sep, 2010 18:36
-
But my point is this - Why did he promise an extra shuttle mission when it was already in the works by the previous administration? We all knew that people in Congress were working to add STS-134. Obama had nothing to do with that. Many people I've spoken to believed that he was saying he'd add another mission beyond STS-134, in which case, was not true, as his plan said nothing about another flight.
Both candidates supported the Shuttle mission to deliver AMS because Dr. Griffin had testified to Congress that there wasn't sufficient funding to do so. Adding another flight beyond ULF-5 also greatly increased the risk that the last Shuttle flight might not be completed by the end of FY 2010 deadline.
There was no flight beyond ULF-5, so anything beyond that would have qualified as an extension -- something that Dr. Griffin reluctantly directed be studied in the fall of 2008, also in response to support for that from both candidates.
If people interpreted McCain and Obama's policy papers as referring to something beyond the AMS flight, then they were forgetting or ignoring Dr. Griffin's administration of policy at the time, which was to complete Shuttle flights by the end of FY 2010.
-
#75
by
nathan.moeller
on 23 Sep, 2010 18:44
-
Both candidates supported the Shuttle mission to deliver AMS because Dr. Griffin had testified to Congress that there wasn't sufficient funding to do so. Adding another flight beyond ULF-5 also greatly increased the risk that the last Shuttle flight might not be completed by the end of FY 2010 deadline.
There was no flight beyond ULF-5, so anything beyond that would have qualified as an extension -- something that Dr. Griffin reluctantly directed be studied in the fall of 2008, also in response to support for that from both candidates.
If people interpreted McCain and Obama's policy papers as referring to something beyond the AMS flight, then they were forgetting or ignoring Dr. Griffin's administration of policy at the time, which was to complete Shuttle flights by the end of FY 2010.
I'm not talking about what Obama did as a candidate. I'm talking about what he promised to do if he were elected. One of those promises was adding an additional shuttle flight. Yes, it goes against Griffin. Yes, it would have required more money. But both of those can be done, as we've seen with STS-134. However, Obama was not responsible for STS-134. That was authorized before he took office.
-
#76
by
psloss
on 23 Sep, 2010 19:04
-
I'm not talking about what Obama did as a candidate. I'm talking about what he promised to do if he were elected. One of those promises was adding an additional shuttle flight. Yes, it goes against Griffin. Yes, it would have required more money. But both of those can be done, as we've seen with STS-134. However, Obama was not responsible for STS-134. That was authorized before he took office.
In other words, the promise on the AMS flight that both Obama and McCain made was fulfilled
before the election. Pressure from both of them was a key to getting HR 6063 enacted.
Why would either of them be on the hook for another flight beyond AMS? The only context that flights beyond AMS was discussed was with respect to a possible Shuttle extension -- something that pressure from both candidates got Dr. Griffin to reluctantly study in late August 2008 -- again before either of them took office and had the official power to do so.
-
#77
by
nathan.moeller
on 24 Sep, 2010 01:33
-
In other words, the promise on the AMS flight that both Obama and McCain made was fulfilled before the election. Pressure from both of them was a key to getting HR 6063 enacted.
Why would either of them be on the hook for another flight beyond AMS? The only context that flights beyond AMS was discussed was with respect to a possible Shuttle extension -- something that pressure from both candidates got Dr. Griffin to reluctantly study in late August 2008 -- again before either of them took office and had the official power to do so.
His exact words on August 2, 2008 (not 22nd like I thought, sorry) were "We're going to work with Bill Nelson to add at least one more flight beyond 2010." STS-134 was already in the works FOR 2010. That's why many people believed he was going to add one beyond STS-134. It's also why many called bs when he announced his plans for FY2011, as his plan did not include the additional shuttle flight.
-
#78
by
Space Pete
on 24 Sep, 2010 03:40
-
NASA Engineering and Safety Center Technical Assessment Report:
Assessment of NASAs Approach to STS-135 with Soyuz Crew Rescue
September 13, 2010
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/482702main_NESC-RP-10-00640%20Assessment%20of%20the%20%20SSP%20Approach%20to%20STS-135%20with%20Soyuz%20Crew%20Rescue%20(9-13-10%20NRB)%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
Thank you for that link, that's really great reading.
I had never considered that STS-135 crewmembers would have to meet anthropometric requirements for the Soyuz.
There are many benefits of using long-duration crewmembers on 135, it seems - they have Russian skills, Soyuz skills, ISS exercise equipment skills, and general skills for living in space for extended periods. Plus, they would already have Sokol suits.
Given these facts, I'm surprised they didn't select two long-duration MSs, instead of just one (Sandy).
Interesting how the new Soyuz 700 series can be launched with just one crewmember.
I had another thought recently: Assume that CSCS is declared, what would happen to the MPLM? Would it be put back in the PLB and undocked with the Orbiter? Or would they leave it on ISS for the duration of CSCS as a storage room/living area for the 135 crew?
-
#79
by
psloss
on 24 Sep, 2010 04:05
-
STS-134 was already in the works FOR 2010.
Not at that time; STS-134 didn't appear on FAWG manifests until later in August. At that time, it was only a LON for the last flight; AMS wasn't associated with STS-134 until after Congress authorized the flight.
But it's past obvious that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
-
#80
by
nathan.moeller
on 24 Sep, 2010 18:25
-
Not at that time; STS-134 didn't appear on FAWG manifests until later in August. At that time, it was only a LON for the last flight; AMS wasn't associated with STS-134 until after Congress authorized the flight.
But it's past obvious that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
That's true, but my thinking was that since the program was supposed to end in September 2010 and the final flight (STS-133 at the time) was set for July 2010, Obama was speaking about a possible STS-135 even though STS-134 and 335 had yet to show up on manifests. I guess he threw me when he said "add at least one more flight BEYOND 2010," as STS-134 was likely going to be slated for 2010 with the knowledge we had at that time.
But yes, if we must disagree, no problem. Either way, I look forward to seeing what happens in the coming weeks and months for STS-134 and STS-135. Thanks!
-
#81
by
Jorge
on 24 Sep, 2010 18:49
-
I had another thought recently: Assume that CSCS is declared, what would happen to the MPLM? Would it be put back in the PLB and undocked with the Orbiter? Or would they leave it on ISS for the duration of CSCS as a storage room/living area for the 135 crew?
Unlike the PMM to be carried on 133, the 135 MPLM will not be rated for long-duration stay at ISS. Most likely, if CSCS were to be declared, it would be filled with trash, transferred back to the payload bay, and disposed with the orbiter.
-
#82
by
TheFallen
on 24 Sep, 2010 19:32
-
-
#83
by
steveS
on 25 Sep, 2010 11:13
-
-
#84
by
steveS
on 29 Sep, 2010 02:31
-
NASA web site says ET-122 is for Endeavour's STS-134 mission. Is this now a done deal ?
As I remember, according to Chris B, a decision on ET-122/ET-138 swap for STS-134 and STS-335/135 was to made in the November/December time frame?
-
#85
by
Ford Mustang
on 29 Sep, 2010 03:48
-
NASA web site says ET-122 is for Endeavour's STS-134 mission. Is this now a done deal ?
As I remember, according to Chris B, a decision on ET-122/ET-138 swap for STS-134 and STS-335/135 was to made in the November/December time frame?
FWIW, the NTD reports on L2 that are posted every morning seem to indicate the same - ET-122 is going on STS-134, ET-138 is flying on STS-335 / STS-135, whichever is needed.
-
#86
by
psloss
on 29 Sep, 2010 11:38
-
NASA web site says ET-122 is for Endeavour's STS-134 mission. Is this now a done deal ?
As I remember, according to Chris B, a decision on ET-122/ET-138 swap for STS-134 and STS-335/135 was to made in the November/December time frame?
FWIW, the NTD reports on L2 that are posted every morning seem to indicate the same - ET-122 is going on STS-134, ET-138 is flying on STS-335 / STS-135, whichever is needed.
Right -- there's enough time to have both tanks ready. That keeps options open for as long as possible, and the focus remains on when Washington might provide some clarity.
-
#87
by
steveS
on 30 Sep, 2010 05:59
-
So now when will S. 3729 go to the White House to get the president's signature?
-
#88
by
Lobo
on 01 Oct, 2010 04:52
-
I'm glad they approved STS-135. Besides, it's a much nicer round number to end the program on, rather than STS-134.
Out of curiosity, why will STS-135 be only 4 months after STS-134? Why not 6 months for a full crew rotation stay on the ISS? Or why not a full year, so then the last shuttle resupply mission is Feb 2012 rather than Jun 2011. Seems they'd want to stretch out that last flight longer than just 4 months.
Heck, I'd say do STS-134 6 months for more after STS-133, and then STS-135 6 months or more after that.
Why do they have STS-134 and STS-135 scheduled like they do?
-
#89
by
Jorge
on 01 Oct, 2010 05:40
-
I'm glad they approved STS-135. Besides, it's a much nicer round number to end the program on, rather than STS-134.
Out of curiosity, why will STS-135 be only 4 months after STS-134? Why not 6 months for a full crew rotation stay on the ISS?
Not sure what you're getting at here; the shuttle doesn't do crew rotation any more, and hasn't for over a year.
Or why not a full year, so then the last shuttle resupply mission is Feb 2012 rather than Jun 2011. Seems they'd want to stretch out that last flight longer than just 4 months.
Heck, I'd say do STS-134 6 months for more after STS-133, and then STS-135 6 months or more after that.
Why do they have STS-134 and STS-135 scheduled like they do?
Because the "burn rate" of the shuttle program is ~$200 million per month, so the longer you stretch the program, the more expensive it gets. As it is, flying 135 in June 2011 requires around $600 million extra. If you extend to February 2012, that's a cool $2.2 billion that has to be found somewhere else in the NASA budget. The money needs to be freed up to do all the other things the Senate bill calls for.
Heck, if the final appropriations bill calls for 135 to be funded, even partially, out of the ISS budget (as some rumors have maintained), then Suffredini might even decide he doesn't want 135 that bad any more. The benefit from the additional supplies and spares wouldn't be worth the cost.
-
#90
by
robertross
on 02 Oct, 2010 00:47
-
Heck, if the final appropriations bill calls for 135 to be funded, even partially, out of the ISS budget (as some rumors have maintained), then Suffredini might even decide he doesn't want 135 that bad any more. The benefit from the additional supplies and spares wouldn't be worth the cost.
Maybe not, but certainly at the moment they feel it a necessity. I'll take the positive when I can
-
#91
by
steveS
on 02 Oct, 2010 00:56
-
Heck, if the final appropriations bill calls for 135 to be funded, even partially, out of the ISS budget (as some rumors have maintained), then Suffredini might even decide he doesn't want 135 that bad any more. The benefit from the additional supplies and spares wouldn't be worth the cost.
A great surprise
.
1. Suffredini has been quoted saying if there is an additional flight, he would like to have that in Summer of 2011.
2. Even at that time, he would have known about the required expenses to maintain the SSP.
3. In my view, NASA won't go on to formal STS-135 planning as it did in August, unless all internal matters were sorted out?
4. Another fuzzy area is how will STS-335 be funded? Lets say a very hypothetical scenario of STS-134 needing a rescue. Hence, at least till April 2011, NASA needs funding to maintain the SSP. If the funding allocation is in March it is OK (since we know the outcome of STS-134), if it has to be before STS-134, then it is unclear. And not sure whether funding for STS-335 can be utilized for STS-135.
As I understood, the main obstacle for STS-135 was the Congress and President's legal approval. Now the Congress has passed the Bill authorizing the additional flight.
-
#92
by
wjbarnett
on 02 Oct, 2010 01:45
-
But no additional funds have been appropriated as yet.
-
#93
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Oct, 2010 01:26
-
4. Another fuzzy area is how will STS-335 be funded? Lets say a very hypothetical scenario of STS-134 needing a rescue. Hence, at least till April 2011, NASA needs funding to maintain the SSP. If the funding allocation is in March it is OK (since we know the outcome of STS-134), if it has to be before STS-134, then it is unclear. And not sure whether funding for STS-335 can be utilized for STS-135.
First,
STS-335 is targeted to launch NET June 28, 2011, not April.
Second, if we're talking
STS-335, NASA will take the money, if not appropriated from Congress by that time, from another part of the budget they have been allocated under the Continuing Resolution passed last week -- which they are operating under now. All else at that point would be secondary to getting the crew of STS-134 home safely.
-
#94
by
steveS
on 06 Oct, 2010 02:57
-
Some time back there was news about STS-135 could be flown with either Atlantis or Discovery. Now that NASA has decided it with Atlantis, can someone explain the main reasons behind it? (i.e., why Discovery was not chosen)
-
#95
by
Chris Bergin
on 12 Oct, 2010 21:59
-
-
#96
by
Lee Jay
on 12 Oct, 2010 23:39
-
-
#97
by
Jorge
on 13 Oct, 2010 00:22
-
-
#98
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 13 Oct, 2010 00:54
-
Some time back there was news about STS-135 could be flown with either Atlantis or Discovery. Now that NASA has decided it with Atlantis, can someone explain the main reasons behind it? (i.e., why Discovery was not chosen)
Second part of this article here shows the logic behind why Atlantis is acceptable for use on STS-335/135.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-updates-sts-335-planning-and-fleet-omdp-lifetime-requirements/Simple answer to why she [Atlantis] was chosen is A) All necessary safety inspections will/have been completed; B) She is much further along in processing than Discovery (considering Discovery has not even launched yet on the mission she would need to complete before taking up assignment on 135/335); C) it simply would not be economical to send Discovery through the same processing schedule Atlantis has been in since May 26, 2010 when she is perfectly capable of carrying out the 335/135 mission.
-
#99
by
dsmillman
on 15 Oct, 2010 18:31
-
-
#100
by
steveS
on 15 Oct, 2010 23:16
-
-
#101
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Oct, 2010 23:32
-
-
#102
by
MATTBLAK
on 22 Oct, 2010 10:50
-
I hope STS-135 becomes a reality: I'm putting together a plan that brings my Wife and I to KSC to see the launch. From Auckland, N.Z. to Merritt Island, Florida!! I was last there in May 1996...
Who else wants to/IS going?!
-
#103
by
steveS
on 23 Oct, 2010 07:01
-
Any info about upcoming processing flow major events for Atlantis on STS-135 ?. NASA KSC twitter site says "Techs will work through the weekend on ground equipment for Atlantis' ammonia system, which cools hardware while the shuttle's in orbit"
-
#104
by
Chris Bergin
on 27 Oct, 2010 01:08
-
-
#105
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 27 Oct, 2010 21:06
-
An early version of the STS-135 flight plan is at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/flightdata/flightplan.html#135
Technically is the planned EVA-1 a STS-135 EVA or an ISS EVA? (The two spacewalkers mentioned are from the ISS crew and not from the shuttle crew)
I believe it will/is classified as an ISS EVA.
I wonder when STs-135 receives funding, whether or not more EVa's will be added as has been the case with Sts-133 and STS-134, especially for those "orphan" tasks.
-
#106
by
Space Pete
on 27 Oct, 2010 22:42
-
A photo of Ron Garan & Mike Fossum in the NBL yesterday, training for the EVA to install the failed PM onto the LMC.
-
#107
by
steveS
on 01 Nov, 2010 10:59
-
"Techs are installing the strongest type heat shield tiles today on shuttle Atlantis' underside where the external fuel tank is attached" -- NASA Kennedy twitter
http://twitter.com/nasakennedy
-
#108
by
steveS
on 22 Nov, 2010 01:16
-
By now, has NASA finalized the ET-138 - ET-122 swap decision between Endeavour and Atlantis?
-
#109
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Nov, 2010 01:33
-
By now, has NASA finalized the ET-138 - ET-122 swap decision between Endeavour and Atlantis?
Don't think it will be "final" until the ET/SRB Mate Review later this month. But all internal documents are showing the switch, yes.
-
#110
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Nov, 2010 01:34
-
An early version of the STS-135 flight plan is at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/flightdata/flightplan.html#135
Technically is the planned EVA-1 a STS-135 EVA or an ISS EVA? (The two spacewalkers mentioned are from the ISS crew and not from the shuttle crew)
I believe it will/is classified as an ISS EVA.
I wonder when STs-135 receives funding, whether or not more EVa's will be added as has been the case with Sts-133 and STS-134, especially for those "orphan" tasks.
Doubtful. The mission just does not have the crew support for EVAs - hence why the only scheduled EVA for this flight will be conducted by the ISS crew, not Atlantis's crew.
-
#111
by
nathan.moeller
on 22 Nov, 2010 18:49
-
I wonder when STs-135 receives funding, whether or not more EVa's will be added as has been the case with Sts-133 and STS-134, especially for those "orphan" tasks.
To expand on what Geb said, it's important to remember that STS-133 and STS-134 each have a crew of six. STS-135 has a crew of four and they'll be tied up with transfers from the MPLM the whole time.
-
#112
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 22 Nov, 2010 20:02
-
I wonder when STs-135 receives funding, whether or not more EVa's will be added as has been the case with Sts-133 and STS-134, especially for those "orphan" tasks.
To expand on what Geb said, it's important to remember that STS-133 and STS-134 each have a crew of six. STS-135 has a crew of four and they'll be tied up with transfers from the MPLM the whole time.
And to go off of what Nate said, remember, also, that because of the 4 person crew size, STS-135 is planned to rendezvous and dock with the ISS on FD-4 instead of the traditional FD-3.
-
#113
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 23 Nov, 2010 01:37
-
I wonder when STs-135 receives funding, whether or not more EVa's will be added as has been the case with Sts-133 and STS-134, especially for those "orphan" tasks.
To expand on what Geb said, it's important to remember that STS-133 and STS-134 each have a crew of six. STS-135 has a crew of four and they'll be tied up with transfers from the MPLM the whole time.
And to go off of what Nate said, remember, also, that because of the 4 person crew size, STS-135 is planned to rendezvous and dock with the ISS on FD-4 instead of the traditional FD-3.
understand about the shuttle crew, but wondering about adding EVA's for the station crew. I remember that USOS eva's have some kind of issue with gas recharging being an issue, and the only way to recharge is shuttle, so that is why most EVA's occur during docked ops.
-
#114
by
steveS
on 23 Nov, 2010 01:44
-
-
#115
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Nov, 2010 13:15
-
I wonder when STs-135 receives funding, whether or not more EVa's will be added as has been the case with Sts-133 and STS-134, especially for those "orphan" tasks.
To expand on what Geb said, it's important to remember that STS-133 and STS-134 each have a crew of six. STS-135 has a crew of four and they'll be tied up with transfers from the MPLM the whole time.
And to go off of what Nate said, remember, also, that because of the 4 person crew size, STS-135 is planned to rendezvous and dock with the ISS on FD-4 instead of the traditional FD-3.
understand about the shuttle crew, but wondering about adding EVA's for the station crew. I remember that USOS eva's have some kind of issue with gas recharging being an issue, and the only way to recharge is shuttle, so that is why most EVA's occur during docked ops.
Doubtful. The mission is currently classed as a 12+0+2 day flight with a docking on FD-3 and undocking on FD-11 -- landing on FD-13.
EVA-1 is currently planned for FD-5 with FI on FD-6 (if needed).
Here's the preliminary timeline:
http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/flightdata/flightplan.html#135NOTE: FD-3 docking was under evaluation a few months ago for the express purpose of gaining additional docked time for the already crowded schedule.
-
#116
by
steveS
on 25 Nov, 2010 21:27
-
Earlier in one of Chris B's STS-135 articles, the mission duration was mentioned as 11+1+2 days. Has it now been changed to 12+0+2 days ?
-
#117
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 26 Nov, 2010 04:24
-
Earlier in one of Chris B's STS-135 articles, the mission duration was mentioned as 11+1+2 days. Has it now been changed to 12+0+2 days ?
Yes, it has. If you have L2 access, reference the Nov. 9, 2010 FAWG.
-
#118
by
Ray125
on 04 Dec, 2010 02:18
-
if STS-134 launch is push back to April 1. will the STS-135 mission be push back also?
-
#119
by
Chris Bergin
on 04 Dec, 2010 02:56
-
if STS-134 launch is push back to April 1. will the STS-135 mission be push back also?
Well that's the NET for 134 at this time. STS-135 is placed at the end of June, so the spacing is still ok. In fact, NASA has wanted to launch 135 as late as they'd be allowed to via funding (preference for July, maybe August), as the purpose of 135 is to leave the ISS in the best possible config prior to COTS/CRS being fully on line.
So technically, this 133 slip isn't all that bad at all for 135. The battle which remains is to gain the required funding.
-
#120
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Dec, 2010 05:51
-
-
#121
by
nathan.moeller
on 15 Dec, 2010 14:13
-
Very interesting. I wonder if they can return with all of that. If not, I wonder what gets priority - the PMA or the AP (I'm thinking the AP).
-
#122
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 15 Dec, 2010 15:00
-
Very interesting. I wonder if they can return with all of that. If not, I wonder what gets priority - the PMA or the AP (I'm thinking the AP).
Well, they plan for contingency and AOA cases with a full payload, so I think they can return fully loaded as long as CG and safety margins are within limits.
-
#123
by
Sesquipedalian
on 15 Dec, 2010 15:47
-
Can they fit the BGA motor on the LMC, or would they need a separate carrier?
-
#124
by
The-Hammer
on 15 Dec, 2010 16:37
-
Can they fit the BGA motor on the LMC, or would they need a separate carrier?
It's small enough to fit inside the airlock. The current on-orbit spare is stored in PMA-3 and rode up inside the MPLM on STS-131.
This one can either go in the MPLM or the mid-deck.
-
#125
by
nathan.moeller
on 15 Dec, 2010 18:38
-
Well, they plan for contingency and AOA cases with a full payload, so I think they can return fully loaded as long as CG and safety margins are within limits.
That I know - But with the PMA, they'd likely come back heavier than when they launched unless they don't plan to bring much back aboard the MPLM.
-
#126
by
steveS
on 23 Dec, 2010 02:33
-
With the new short-term appropriations bill signed on Dec. 22 through March 4, several Internet sites say that STS-135 will not have funding problems. (since $3.1 billion appropriated for the space shuttle program in 2010 in sufficient for STS-133, 134 and 135)
1. Since at least in current belief is that the lauch will take place in late June, when will NASA officially manifest it?
2. When will the tank swap decision between STS-134 and STS-135 be official? (or are they waiting till ET-137 investigations are over so that anything learnt from it can be applied here)
-
#127
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 23 Dec, 2010 03:19
-
With the new short-term appropriations bill signed on Dec. 22 through March 4, several Internet sites say that STS-135 will not have funding problems. (since $3.1 billion appropriated for the space shuttle program in 2010 in sufficient for STS-133, 134 and 135)
1. Since at least in current belief is that the lauch will take place in late June, when will NASA officially manifest it?
2. When will the tank swap decision between STS-134 and STS-135 be official? (or are they waiting till ET-137 investigations are over so that anything learnt from it can be applied here)
1. Currently plans are tentative, but NASA has said they can go as late as "spring 2011" before making a final call on STS-135.
2. ET-122 on STS-134 is already official (has been since ET/SRB mate review last month -- and earlier than that based on the morning NTD reports and the fact that they rolled the SRBs for STS-134 out of HB1 and into HB3 about two months ago in preparation for mating to ET-122). ET-138 will be the LON tank on STS-335 as well as the tank for the still notional STS-135.
ET-122 mate to SRBs for STS-134 is tentatively targeted for January 11 but is still highly dependent on the results of the instrumented Tanking Test last week and the ET intertank back-side X-rays to take place over the coming weeks.
-
#128
by
Orbiter
on 23 Dec, 2010 17:40
-
From SpaceRef.com
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35607The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267) directs NASA to conduct the above referenced mission. As of this date, the Congress has not cleared final FY 2011 appropriations for the Federal government, including NASA. However, the FY 2011 Continuing Appropriations Act provides funding for most Federal departments and agencies, including NASA, through March 4, 2010, at FY 2010 enacted levels. Funding made available in this measure will enable NASA to work towards the STS-135 mission.
For this reason, I ask that you continue planning and preparations efforts to execute this mission in late June 2011 as currently planned. This includes maintaining the requisite workforce to safely conduct this mission and extending contracts if necessary. We must focus on STS-135 as a real mission as well as a Launch-On-Need capability for the STS-134. Without clarity in focus now we reduce the probability of safely executing this critical mission. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide clear direction for the teams. STS-135 is critical to health of the International Space Station.
Orbiter
-
#129
by
Space Pete
on 05 Jan, 2011 17:09
-
From Florida Today:
NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden today reiterated a commitment to fly a third shuttle mission this year and said the agency has determined the mission would be safe.
The 2010 NASA Authorization Act requests the flight pending an assessment of its safety, which Bolden said is not yet final.
http://space.flatoday.net/2011/01/bolden-third-shuttle-flight-would-be.html
-
#130
by
rdale
on 05 Jan, 2011 17:19
-
Something doesn't compute in that article... Bolden says that they determined the mission would be safe, but they can't formally approve the flight until they determine the mission will be safe?
-
#131
by
psloss
on 05 Jan, 2011 17:28
-
Something doesn't compute in that article... Bolden says that they determined the mission would be safe, but they can't formally approve the flight until they determine the mission will be safe?
Sounds like he said something to the effect that the safety assessment isn't final. Perhaps in a formal sense and perhaps the assessment process isn't complete.
-
#132
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 05 Jan, 2011 18:58
-
Something doesn't compute in that article... Bolden says that they determined the mission would be safe, but they can't formally approve the flight until they determine the mission will be safe?
Sounds like he said something to the effect that the safety assessment isn't final. Perhaps in a formal sense and perhaps the assessment process isn't complete.
Wait... I thought the assessment process for safety was completed back in September? What am I missing here? I clearly remember that in the Congressional bill (now law) that provided direction to fly STS-135 we had discussions on the fact that the safety assessments were already complete.
-
#133
by
psloss
on 05 Jan, 2011 19:54
-
Wait... I thought the assessment process for safety was completed back in September? What am I missing here? I clearly remember that in the Congressional bill (now law) that provided direction to fly STS-135 we had discussions on the fact that the safety assessments were already complete.
The NESC report was completed in September, but the Shuttle and ISS programs reviewed and responded to findings and recommendations subsequent to that. And then oversight bodies like the ASAP reviewed both the report and subsequent responses.
This doesn't sound like a big deal, more along the lines that the process of vetting the report and subsequent actions isn't formally complete yet.
-
#134
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 06 Jan, 2011 02:52
-
Wait... I thought the assessment process for safety was completed back in September? What am I missing here? I clearly remember that in the Congressional bill (now law) that provided direction to fly STS-135 we had discussions on the fact that the safety assessments were already complete.
The NESC report was completed in September, but the Shuttle and ISS programs reviewed and responded to findings and recommendations subsequent to that. And then oversight bodies like the ASAP reviewed both the report and subsequent responses.
This doesn't sound like a big deal, more along the lines that the process of vetting the report and subsequent actions isn't formally complete yet.
Ah, I understand.
-
#135
by
Space Pete
on 06 Jan, 2011 21:14
-
Here's Bolden's comments on STS-135 from the AIAA conference yesterday:
The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 has recognized the importance to ISS of flying one more shuttle flight in addition to the two remaining on the manifest. We have looked at the safety aspects of that flight, and we have determined that this additional flight is as safe as previous flights and has adequate crew rescue capability if needed. We are currently planning to fly this additional flight, STS-135 as the FY 2011 budget process sorts itself out.
Source:
http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/Bolden_AIAA_Jan_5_2011.docx
-
#136
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Jan, 2011 18:59
-
"STS-335" will transition to "STS-135" designation for INTERNAL documents next week according to NASA briefing this afternoon. This is not an official indication that the mission will actually fly, just that all personnel need to "really start thinking and planning as if this mission will actually launch." Need to get through STS-133 and the Continuing Resolution from Congress (which expires 4 March) and see then see what the budget for the remainder of the year is before nailing down formal plan for 135.
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
-
#137
by
asmolenski
on 11 Jan, 2011 20:20
-
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
Is there anything, anywhere, on what the other windows may be for 'late in the fiscal year'?
-
#138
by
psloss
on 11 Jan, 2011 20:39
-
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
Is there anything, anywhere, on what the other windows may be for 'late in the fiscal year'?
Haven't seen anything yet, but would expect to see a few
projected T-0 times based on the "late August" timeframe mentioned in the briefing today that would be the preference, if there's budget for it.
There's a thread here on ISS schedule that shows some of the traffic that would be part of the constraints in the summer:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61.0There are still a few big things, like the budget and STS-133 (and maybe 134), that are outstanding before a more firm launch date might be published.
-
#139
by
asmolenski
on 11 Jan, 2011 21:00
-
Thanks! Wasn't looking for anything firm, as I understand all the variables leading up to 135. That helps already though, thanks!
-
#140
by
lucspace
on 11 Jan, 2011 21:06
-
Is there a likelyhood that the decision whether to fly STS-135 will be taken after STS-134 has been completed?
-
#141
by
rdale
on 11 Jan, 2011 21:33
-
Is there a likelyhood that the decision whether to fly STS-135 will be taken after STS-134 has been completed?
CHrisG's post above reflects the best known plan for now.
-
#142
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Jan, 2011 22:18
-
Is there a likelyhood that the decision whether to fly STS-135 will be taken after STS-134 has been completed?
CHrisG's post above reflects the best known plan for now.
As rdale stated, my post above is the best known plan right now, but NASA managers have alluded to the fact that they could go as late as the end of March/beginning of April before making a firm decision on STS-135. Of course, that is based on a NET 28 June 2011 launch date.
-
#143
by
cd-slam
on 12 Jan, 2011 00:08
-
Launch date is still NET 28 June 2011. ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late in the fiscal year as possible."
Is there anything, anywhere, on what the other windows may be for 'late in the fiscal year'?
For info, there is a beta angle cut-out which ends on August 15. Usually NASA will schedule their launch dates immediately after a cut-out to maximize the launch window (April 18 is also immediately after a beta angle cut-out).
So I'd be looking for a date around August 16. Of course this will be subject to ISS program discussion and previous shuttle missions, it's far too early for a precise date.
-
#144
by
steveS
on 12 Jan, 2011 01:47
-
So I'd be looking for a date around August 16. Of course this will be subject to ISS program discussion and previous shuttle missions, it's far too early for a precise date.
I think Discovery should seriously think of leaving the pad on Feb-end to help her sister Atlantis
.
As I read, Senator Bill Nelson seems to have viewed some opinion on STS-135 based on the delays with STS-133.
-
#145
by
asmolenski
on 20 Jan, 2011 18:03
-
NASA Press Release:
Space Shuttle Program baselines STS-135
Thu, 20 Jan 2011 12:20:22 PM CST
On Thursday, the Space Shuttle Program baselined the STS-135 mission for a target launch date of June 28. It is NASAs intent to fly the mission with orbiter Atlantis carrying the Raffaello multipurpose logistics module to deliver supplies, logistics and spare parts to the International Space Station. The mission also will fly a system to investigate the potential for robotically refueling existing spacecraft and return a failed ammonia pump module to help NASA better understand the failure mechanism and improve pump designs for future systems.
In late December, the agencys Space Operations Mission Directorate requested the shuttle and International Space Station programs take the necessary steps to maintain the capability to fly Atlantis on the STS-135 mission.
The Authorization Act of 2010 directs NASA to conduct the mission, and baselining the flight enables the program to begin preparations for the mission with a target launch date of June 28. The mission would be the 135th and final space shuttle flight.
Prepping for the next shuttle mission, STS-133, continues in the Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida where technicians are making good progress in their work to modify the stringers on Discovery's external fuel tank. Discovery and its six astronauts are targeted to launch on the STS-133 mission to the International Space Station on Feb. 24.
Having been joined by their newest crew member, Steve Bowen, Discoverys astronauts will review robotics procedures today and review spacewalk timelines at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. Bowen, who flew into space on STS-132 in May 2010, will be the first astronaut to fly on consecutive missions.
-
#146
by
rdale
on 21 Jan, 2011 00:14
-
Good to have this monkey off our back finally!
-
#147
by
robertross
on 21 Jan, 2011 00:42
-
Good to have this monkey off our back finally!
Agreed. Should make OV-106 a little bit happier too
-
#148
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Jan, 2011 03:01
-
Now that's out of the way, let's see if they can slip it to around August as preferenced. June 28 is still great, given the mission, but Gerst's already noted the preference if they can find the money to stretch.
I'll write up a new 135 article on processing and relevant notes when there's a gap (Russian EVA tomorrow, HTV-2 launch tomorrow etc.)
-
#149
by
rdale
on 21 Jan, 2011 13:27
-
Liftoff scheduled at 3:48pm EDT.
-
#150
by
steveS
on 22 Jan, 2011 04:01
-
A SPACE.com article says STS-135 will have one EVA. Will this be conduced by the shuttle crew or as informed earlier in the forum, this is just an ISS EVA planned during Atlantis' visit to the ISS?
-
#151
by
nathan.moeller
on 22 Jan, 2011 04:25
-
A SPACE.com article says STS-135 will have one EVA. Will this be conduced by the shuttle crew or as informed earlier in the forum, this is just an ISS EVA planned during Atlantis' visit to the ISS?
ISS EVA conducted by ISS crew to support ammonia pump operations.
-
#152
by
Martin FL
on 22 Jan, 2011 16:14
-
Steve, read the STS-135 articles on this site. The stage EVA for STS-135 was reported in August of last year!
-
#153
by
Robwi
on 22 Jan, 2011 19:47
-
Long time no see. I used to visit this forum a lot before STS-128, which I visited on the causeway, but was delayed twice. Then I had to take my flight home.... I wached the launched a day later from the summerplace.
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the progress so closely lately, so I beg your pardon, but is STS-135 a reality, or is it a "maybe"? I do want to visit a launch, so should I try for April or June?
-
#154
by
Lee Jay
on 22 Jan, 2011 19:49
-
Long time no see. I used to visit this forum a lot before STS-128, which I visited on the causeway, but was delayed twice. Then I had to take my flight home.... I wached the launched a day later from the summerplace.
I'm sorry to say I haven't followed the progress so closely lately, so I beg your pardon, but is STS-135 a reality, or is it a "maybe"? I do want to visit a launch, so should I try for April or June?
STS-135 is a "probably", I would say.
-
#155
by
Robwi
on 22 Jan, 2011 19:55
-
Thank's. I guess I have to follow more closely. I was so close at the 128, but thunder pulled the plug. Anyway, I met a lot of nice people, and was at place the causeway, watching flashes all around the bay. It was close for a launch, but half an hour before the launch, they pulled the plug. The next launch attempt the pulled the plug when I was on the bus on my way to the launch. Well, well, that's life. Anyway. I want to see another launch, for real! If it's april or june does not matter!
-
#156
by
Orbiter
on 26 Jan, 2011 20:05
-
Trying to understand this, maybe someone could help me. Is STS-135 the confirmed by NASA last space shuttle mission? Is there now offically 3 Space shuttle missions on the books this year? Looking at the presser released last week by NASA, I'd say yes but I've seen some places still refer to STS-135 as a 'possible' mission v. a confirmed one. I know that STS-135 isn't still funded but still, I'm a little confused.
Orbiter
-
#157
by
rdale
on 26 Jan, 2011 21:17
-
Given the Congressional situation, I'd never say it's a "lock" but it is on the books.
-
#158
by
Chris Bergin
on 14 Feb, 2011 03:53
-
-
#159
by
lucspace
on 17 Feb, 2011 17:33
-
So what about the preference of flying STS135 later in the year. How likely is a move to August, and what would be the beta cut-out around then?
-
#160
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Feb, 2011 20:36
-
So what about the preference of flying STS135 later in the year. How likely is a move to August, and what would be the beta cut-out around then?
The "likelihood" is what it always has been. STS-135 is scheduled to launch NET 28 June 2011. The ISS program would like to fly the mission "as late as possible in the fiscal 2011 year to best meet the needs of the ISS." That is all we know.
Beta Cutout runs July 31 - August 15.
-
#161
by
PahTo
on 17 Feb, 2011 20:43
-
Thanks Chris. To be sure, FY11 ends Sept 30, 2011?
-
#162
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 17 Feb, 2011 20:48
-
Thanks Chris. To be sure, FY11 ends Sept 30, 2011?
Correct, sir.
-
#163
by
Orbiter
on 19 Mar, 2011 23:19
-
Didn't want to mess up the processing thread, but how might a government shutdown effect the status of STS-135? If internal NASA projects aren't being funded by the government, how will STS-135 get any money?
Orbiter
-
#164
by
nathan.moeller
on 20 Mar, 2011 11:41
-
Didn't want to mess up the processing thread, but how might a government shutdown effect the status of STS-135? If internal NASA projects aren't being funded by the government, how will STS-135 get any money?
Orbiter
I don't know if a government shutdown would affect shuttle operations, but from what I understand, if they don't allocate additional funds for STS-135, NASA would simply pull the money from other parts of their budget to fly it.
-
#165
by
Orbiter
on 20 Mar, 2011 14:07
-
Didn't want to mess up the processing thread, but how might a government shutdown effect the status of STS-135? If internal NASA projects aren't being funded by the government, how will STS-135 get any money?
Orbiter
I don't know if a government shutdown would affect shuttle operations, but from what I understand, if they don't allocate additional funds for STS-135, NASA would simply pull the money from other parts of their budget to fly it.
But if the appropriations from the other parts of their budget doesn't come in because of a government shutdown - then what? I'm having trouble understanding the situation, economics is not my strong point.
Orbiter
-
#166
by
Danny Dot
on 20 Mar, 2011 15:45
-
Will STS-135 have a LON behind it is case of TPS damage? My understanding is there are no ETs left.
-
#167
by
Jorge
on 20 Mar, 2011 15:47
-
Will STS-135 have a LON behind it is case of TPS damage?
No, it will have a crew of four that will gradually go home on Soyuz if the orbiter cannot return.
-
#168
by
Lee Jay
on 20 Mar, 2011 16:01
-
But if the appropriations from the other parts of their budget doesn't come in because of a government shutdown - then what? I'm having trouble understanding the situation, economics is not my strong point.
Orbiter
Perhaps the reason you aren't getting many answers is that the true answer is complex and probably largely unknown. Contractors may have contract money and other resources to keep going, and some NASA employees may even be considered "critical" and also keep going. But the numbers depend on the details of the situation. If it happened while the orbiter was in orbit, there's no way in the world that operations would shut down and strand those folks, but it's probably less clear as to what would happen if the launch had not yet occurred. I suspect that the closer it was to launch time the more likely the launch would happen, but it's just a guess.
-
#169
by
arkaska
on 20 Mar, 2011 16:30
-
No, it will have a crew of four that will gradually go home on Soyuz if the orbiter cannot return.
Will the shuttle bring up seat-liners for Soyuz or will they come up in Progress if needed?
-
#170
by
Space Pete
on 20 Mar, 2011 17:08
-
No, it will have a crew of four that will gradually go home on Soyuz if the orbiter cannot return.
Will the shuttle bring up seat-liners for Soyuz or will they come up in Progress if needed?
They will come up on the Shuttle, along with the crew's Sokol suits.
-
#171
by
Chris Bergin
on 21 Mar, 2011 02:57
-
-
#172
by
Zed_Noir
on 22 Mar, 2011 04:17
-
No, it will have a crew of four that will gradually go home on Soyuz if the orbiter cannot return.
Will the shuttle bring up seat-liners for Soyuz or will they come up in Progress if needed?
They will come up on the Shuttle, along with the crew's Sokol suits.
What is the possibility of putting seats and life support in the Dragon COTS2 capsule to retrieve the stranded crew? I know it's extremely unlikely, just is it technically feasible?
-
#173
by
arkaska
on 22 Mar, 2011 08:02
-
No, it will have a crew of four that will gradually go home on Soyuz if the orbiter cannot return.
Will the shuttle bring up seat-liners for Soyuz or will they come up in Progress if needed?
They will come up on the Shuttle, along with the crew's Sokol suits.
What is the possibility of putting seats and life support in the Dragon COTS2 capsule to retrieve the stranded crew? I know it's extremely unlikely, just is it technically feasible?
No there isn't any developed equipment that can be put in Dragon, and there are no seats etc.
-
#174
by
steveS
on 01 Apr, 2011 02:11
-
-
#175
by
Jim
on 01 Apr, 2011 11:41
-
Didn't want to mess up the processing thread, but how might a government shutdown effect the status of STS-135? If internal NASA projects aren't being funded by the government, how will STS-135 get any money?
Orbiter
I don't know if a government shutdown would affect shuttle operations, but from what I understand, if they don't allocate additional funds for STS-135, NASA would simply pull the money from other parts of their budget to fly it.
No, a shutdown would make a cancellation almost a certainity
-
#176
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 01 Apr, 2011 12:46
-
Didn't want to mess up the processing thread, but how might a government shutdown effect the status of STS-135? If internal NASA projects aren't being funded by the government, how will STS-135 get any money?
Orbiter
I don't know if a government shutdown would affect shuttle operations, but from what I understand, if they don't allocate additional funds for STS-135, NASA would simply pull the money from other parts of their budget to fly it.
No, a shutdown would make a cancellation almost a certainity
In what manner? STS-135 is mandated by law; NASA has committed to flying the mission and, as Orbiter states above, has stated that it will pull money from other areas to get the flight flown.
-
#177
by
psloss
on 01 Apr, 2011 12:59
-
Didn't want to mess up the processing thread, but how might a government shutdown effect the status of STS-135? If internal NASA projects aren't being funded by the government, how will STS-135 get any money?
Orbiter
I don't know if a government shutdown would affect shuttle operations, but from what I understand, if they don't allocate additional funds for STS-135, NASA would simply pull the money from other parts of their budget to fly it.
No, a shutdown would make a cancellation almost a certainity
In what manner? STS-135 is mandated by law; NASA has committed to flying the mission and, as Orbiter states above, has stated that it will pull money from other areas to get the flight flown.
See recent discussion here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22991.0A shutdown is where there's no funding -- no appropriations, no CR. Only "essential services" are paid for during a shutdown and if it comes to that, we'll have to see what NASA HQ decides is essential.
-
#178
by
Chris Bergin
on 01 Apr, 2011 13:02
-
-
#179
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 01 Apr, 2011 13:09
-
Or save yourself having to read though masses of pages of armchair politics and head right to the post that matters:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22991.msg716698#msg716698
There we go. That's more along the lines of what I was thinking.
Thanks for the post Chris B. Sometimes these discussions get so long and contrived it's hard to keep track of everything.
-
#180
by
Chris Bergin
on 15 Apr, 2011 14:40
-
-
#181
by
moongator
on 17 May, 2011 22:24
-
First post on this site... been intending to do this for a while.
I am desperately looking for some kind of info related to the landing times for STS-134 and STS-135. I have seen numerous launches but never watched a landing. I am planning to come down to the Cape for one or either of them after trying for a long time to work things out.
I have been told (rather brusquely, in fact) that the STS-134 landing cannot POSSIBLY be in daylight hours and WILL NOT be visible and WILL NOT be possible for anyone in the public to view, that no site near KSC will permit viewing. I need some kind of guidance as to why the attitude about this landing, and also want to know what the particulars are for 135. If I miss out on 134... there's only one left. What is the scheduling situation here?
I am determined to get down there for one of these final landings in the shuttle program, whatever it takes. Anyone have any advice as to what the possible schedules are? I know there is a good chance of delays for the 135 launch.
-
#182
by
solaria
on 17 May, 2011 22:56
-
"weather permitting, return for a final landing of Endeavour at the Kennedy Space Center at MET 15days 17hrs 36mins in the early morning hours of June 1."
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/05/sts-134-endeavour-packed-mission-overview/This puts the landing somewhere around 2.30am on June 1st, so it probably won't be very visible. Possibility Atlantis will roll out to the pad that same night, though timelines yet to be confirmed (and they may not be able to have both happen at once). Could be an interesting day to be at KSC, though not if it all happens in the dark when its shut!
I think a daytime landing should be viewable from Titusville though in normal circumstances and think I read/saw photos implying that somewhere. Probably difficult to predict what would happen with STS-135 yet, if the July 12th was confirmed I know thats a 09:45am ish launch window, no idea on landing though.
Obviously theres always a risk that it ends up landing at Edwards if weather is bad at the Cape.
-
#183
by
wjbarnett
on 17 May, 2011 23:00
-
Note however, that the runway itself is not visible from any public area. With a night landing, there'll be no lights on her until after passing the threshold and so no real chance to see the landing. The one landing I saw was in daylight and very quick! You need to know in advance which direction she'll be landing and be very observant.
.